- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:54:25 -0400
- To: Paul Neave <paul.neave@gmail.com>
- CC: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>, public-media-capture@w3.org
On 11/07/2013 9:33 AM, Paul Neave wrote:
> So to follow on from these implementations, I'd like to suggest the
> following to be formally added to the spec:
>
> 1. PERMISSION_DENIED - User explicitly denied device access via the
> browser UI
> 2. CONSTRAINT_NOT_SATISFIED - Device access is not possible given
> overambitious *mandatory* constraints
> 3. HARDWARE_UNAVAILABLE - There is a suitable device connected but a
> hardware error occurred (such as OS/program/webpage lock)
> 4. NO_DEVICES_FOUND - There are no suitable devices connected whatsoever
>
> These four cover most use cases in my opinion. One remaining point I
> agree with is that it would be useful to know whether the user pressed
> the "deny" button, or if the browser has device access disabled (by
> the user some time previously or otherwise). So perhaps a fifth error code
>
> 5. PERMISSION_NOT_ALLOWED - Browser denied device access
>
> or something else simple and similar to PERMISSION_DENIED would be good.
>
> There was also talk of having NavigatorUserMediaError inherit from
> DOMError, so all of these error code should really be in camelCase,
> not UPPER_CASE, see
> here: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22216
>
It goes without saying that I second the motion to add these
additional error codes. On the topic of moving from error codes to
exception, another benefit is that you can declare error sub-types
(meaning, the top-level exception could be PermissionDenied and many
sub-types for the different reasons that permission could be denied).
Gili
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 02:55:57 UTC